How to convert a skeptic - written for the faithful by a skeptic

[mrgrumpy]

I can see yer getting DESPERATE.

You said Jesus wrote biblical verse.

All we're asking for is that you prove it/demonstrate your statement as being true.

You can do that, can't you?

 

[MHz]

There you are again, back to being a 'we'.
Could He read or not?
You're right, He didn't hold the pen, His hands were doing the deeds that were later written about and He only spoke the words that were written down, which still makes Him more important than you or I who can write but cannot know what to write about things that will be nor things that contain wisdom as our wisdom comes from things that He had others write for us.
Now go watch the video that shows what your atheist brothers are capable of inflicting on those they call their own as well as those they perceive as the enemy, there doesn't seem to be any difference.

 

[mrgrumpy]

Well, well.

He was writing 45 minutes ago, according to you, and now he wasn't.

You really don't have the slightest understanding about your own religion, do you?

And here you are on this Forum trying to convert others to your beliefs.

What's that old saying about if you want to see true ignorance, just scratch a Christian?

 

[MHz]

Okay, back to God writing, if you think Scripture comes in many pages consider if He wrote them all down personally, how mant tablets of stone would that take?
Jesus doesn't write personally on paper, He sticks His finger into you and writes on your heart, a thing that you have not yet experienced.

Who says I'm trying to convert anybody, that's not my 'job', you are more than capable (although that is a fact I am assuming) of working that out, that is between you and God alone.

How many times did you get scratched while being in the 'service'?

 

[karrie]

Well, it's all perfectly simple, an idea that I think deserves its own acronym: IAPS. First, many people (like me, for instance) just enjoy the process. Discussion and argument are challenging , interesting, and fun
.

See, I agree, to a degree. You discuss. You are a treat to discuss the issue with in that respect, compared to some. But, not all 'skeptics' or 'atheists' or whatever (and not all religious either), are here to discuss. They're here just to argue. Now, if a discussion turns into and argument, that's one thing. I think you and I have argued. But it's usually based in a discussion. It's such a fine line.

 

[MHz]

Wouldn't the basic reasons skeptics and religionists have for their stance on things pre-determine if a discussion can/should even take place. From a religionists POV I certainly can't prove God exists and if a skeptic is skeptical of there not being a God because there is no proof it doesn't seem like a discussion can even start. If a person is a skeptic because of the words that are in the Bible lend to being skeptical, be it events cannot happen, or the story-line is too disjointed, or some similar reason and a religionist sees those events as being possible (taking Godly power into account) or that the story-line isn't disjointed then a 'limited discussion' is possible.
If it is just the 'story-line' that is the topic that would seem to be the best environment for a lengthy detailed discussion, lengthy in that a definition of just one word can take pages to fully cover.

Then again, it might be like oil and water, they just aren't meant to be mixed and no amount of effort will bring any good results.

Conversion should never be set as a goal, the best that can be accomplished is that each side gets a better understanding why the other person has the view they have.

 

[Avro]

With what we know about the natural world and the universe I find it hard to believe anyone would think there is a greater being that controls it all but having said that I don't think it is fair for us enlightened individuals to destroy someones faith that gives them comfort in the face of death which is the only real reason religion exsists in the first place, fear of oblivion.

 

[MHz]

I'd probably go to the same lengths as you to avoid death. (killing others might detract from 'is it really worth it', since I'm going to hit the ground sooner or later anyway). The only thing that might separate me from you is that I am under the impression that my own eyes will see the very same things you believe only your future descendants will see.

 

[mrgrumpy]

Thick as bricks!

Until this morning you thought Jesus wrote Scripture and then it was " well, no I guess he didn't put pen to paper'''.

Grade 6 education?

 

[MHz]

Gee grumpy even you should be aware than one person can have another type up a document for them without having to 'give up' authorship? Whose words do the quotes directly attributed to what Jesus said in the 1st four books of the NT belong to? Who do the words that the comforter brought to any writer belong to? When a prophecy was shown in vision or in words who does that vision or words belong to?
When you quote (and actually put a name with the quote) somebody who do those words belong to?
If you add or subtract to the words in Revelation, who do you think is going to be escorting you out of the building, the one who wrote the words or the one who said the words that were written down?

I'll have you know 4 of the best years of my life were spent in the 6th grade. lol

 

[mrgrumpy]

Funny to see silly degenerate in to just plain stupid.

 

[karrie]

Keep it off the personal attacks and stick to debating the issues.

 

[look3467]

I did give you praise a while back because I saw allot of good sense in your observations.

And this new opening statement/thread attests to that.

And all of it because you have been and experienced both sides of the issue of God's existence.

There are others as well, who have done so to, like mrgrumpy, Dexter to name a few.

I consider you/them very intelligent and articulate folk.

The only and best thing that I have to share is my knowledge of revelation about the bible's mysteries which are hard to understand and which are a source of ridicule, belittlement and total disregard for the existence of God.

Having understanding places me in one of two positions: one, I could use my knowledge for my own gain, look down on my brethren and gloat, make money writing books, fleece a congregation of all their money and just simply, become a religion.

And two, I could shed light on some of the the mysteries of the bible with great compassion for the ones in the dark.

I chose the latter.

For there I can help some, not all, come to some understanding of how great and good God is.

If I can not convince a skeptic to reconsider at looking at their previous knowledge of the bible from a different angle, and still remain a skeptic, then that is all I can do.

But, you have a good argument against religionists making blind faith dogmatic declarations, as well as an argument against the skeptic with their insistence on shear proof.

If proof was all there was to having faith in God, then, God fails us, because Godly proof can only be felt in the heart.

Jesus was accused of being the King of the Jews, and if king, it would have been natural for Him to have exercised power to defend, to protect Him self or to have set up an earthly kingdom.

But His kingship was and is not of this world, but is in the hearts of mankind.

Therefore, proof of God's existence can only be in the heart of man as entrance into that heavenly Kingdom while yet still living and breathing in the flesh.

All the kings man and all the Kings horses could not put Humpty Dumpy back together again, for it was not in the pieces that made up Humpty-dumpy, but in who he was.

He had a great fall, (a similitude, if you will of Jesus, as Jesus being cast down) and only God Himself could put Humpty dumpy back together again.

The pieces, are all of us, back into one body, and God saving the whole.

Peace>>>AJ

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Having understanding places me in one of two positions: one, I could use my knowledge for my own gain...[or]... I could shed light on some of the the mysteries of the bible with great compassion for the ones in the dark.

I chose the latter.

Good for you, but I think you're confusing knowledge with belief, and some people might find your characterization of people who don't believe as you do as being "in the dark" a little condescending, if not actively offensive. You may not be right.

No rational skeptic demands proof of god's existence, though plenty of irrational skeptics do, and to forestall the obvious reply I'll immediately concede that I've made that mistake myself more than once in the heat of the moment. A rational skeptic knows such proof is not possible, unless god himself steps in and provides unequivocal proof of his presence. And that would have to be something pretty dramatic. I'd be satisfied with some good evidence and a sound inductive argument that shows god's existence to be the most likely correct conclusion from it. I've never seen that. I've seen lots of unsound arguments and unverifiable evidence, and lots of evidence with much simpler explanations, but never anything that points with a higher probability than anything else at the conclusion that god exists.

You say it can only be felt in the heart. That makes it a uniquely individual and private experience, not something you can point at that I can see. All I can get is your report on your feelings and your interpretation of them, which may not be correct. That's not evidence, that's an anecdote, and there are plausible and prosaic explanations for it that don't involve postulating a deity.

 

[MHz]

The Bible does use that term to describe people who do not have have certain knowledge about the Bible. Just who that covers and who that does not cover could be a topic of debate. The Bible also uses the term children of light to describe those who would be the opposite of the children of darkness.
At the easiest level, a person would move from darkness to light by having knowledge that there is something called salvation, and physical death is not a barrier. That would mean the only ones who are in the dark are those who have never heard of the Bible. At it's harshest meaning it could include just about everybody, Bible readers included. If Scripture has but one single meaning then as soon as there are two doctrines then somebody is in the dark. Scripture also says there will be a falling away before the man of sin makes his appearance. If there is only one meaning then falling away doesn't have to mean people are leaving the Church it can mean what is being taught in the Church is a falling away from what Scripture originally taught. The chapter that explains that also says the 'mystery of iniquity' was at work even back then, no doubt having made bigger inroads since then. Staying with the harshest meaning, if Scripture was the guide book to getting through those last years alive then if you have latched onto the wrong doctrine your chances take a real drop. One of Jesus's teachings says that when you are in Judea and you see an apostrophe spoken of in Daniel it is time to head for the hills, like right then, don't even grab a coat if it takes you off the most direct route. If you do you will get killed. Since there are two chapters in Daniel that have such an event you have a 50/50 chance of picking the right one, or more properly being taught which is the right one. Anybody being taught the 7 year trib doctrine is not being shown the right chapter.
When trying to make heads or tails out of the Bible you also have to go with what is being defined in those words, the character of Satan being one such example, if he is somebody other than a fallen angel that is actually not at all fond of man then you are in darkness about who he is.

We only have this little book to work with, if nobody has found any physical evidence in 2000 years there isn't going to be anything turn up. The only thing I can think of as being even close to evidence is already in our hands. It takes all 66 books to get the full picture of what God says just about what will happen in the last few years. Okay, you might not need the 1st couple, but certainly as far back as when Moses was cruising around.
Either some men started a story back then (everything the next generations had to work with, concerning God, are the very same words we have today) and successive generations kept building on that same story (the last few years) and adding to it or God had the whole story from the beginning and gave a little bit to each of those generations.
Deuteronomy says sincere prayer will be useful, even in the tribulation that will come in the latter years.
Job introduces a resurrection from death back to life.
Etc. because it could be made into a very long list.
Revelation gives the length of that trib, and the two stages of people being resurrected. None of the books can be tied together without Revelation, it's the index to the latter days, the words written about the details of the latter days go back to Moses. If you can tie that all together (in a logical manner) does that point to it could only be written that way if their was one single author?

That still isn't proof but it certainly should move the Bible up a notch or two from being a collection of unrelated myths.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

None of the books can be tied together without Revelation, it's the index to the latter days, the words written about the details of the latter days go back to Moses. If you can tie that all together (in a logical manner) does that point to it could only be written that way if their was one single author?

That still isn't proof but it certainly should move the Bible up a notch or two from being a collection of unrelated myths.

Actually, no it doesn't. Not only is that not proof, it's not evidence either, because it starts with an unexplained and unjustifiable assumption that it's all literally true. This is one of those cases where there are much simpler explanations. The Bible is much more comprehensible if you take it to be the writings of many men over many years, with many agendas. None of them had any idea their works would ever be assembled into a single document, though many of them clearly had read other parts of it before writing their own stuff. At one stroke that explains all the many errors and inconsistencies, and renders any attempt to rationalize them all both futile and not necessary. They're simply human errors and misunderstandings and ignorance.

I have a particular concern with the Last Days stuff. Every generation since Revelation entered the canon has had people who think it applies to their own time and the near future, which I think is dangerous and absurd, especially now. How many of the last half dozen or so U.S. Presidents have believed this stuff? The current one certainly does and I have no doubt he thinks he's doing god's work in Iraq as part of the run up to the Last Days. I believe his father did, Reagan did, and Carter did. This is the guy with his finger on the trigger of a system that can actually end the world, and if he believes that's what god wants him to do as part of the great plan, he'll do it. If a person believes in a supposed prophecy and is in a position to make it come true, what can we expect to happen? But if in fact the prophecy has been misunderstood, or has nothing to do with reality, it's just the fevered rantings of a very angry and bloody-minded crackpot--which is certainly one possible interpretation of Revelation--then we're heading for self-immolation for the stupidest of reasons.

 

[look3467]

MHz
I enjoyed your explanation and mood of the delivery of it, thanks.

Dexter

I have a particular concern with the Last Days stuff. Every generation since Revelation entered the canon has had people who think it applies to their own time and the near future, which I think is dangerous and absurd, especially now. How many of the last half dozen or so U.S. Presidents have believed this stuff? The current one certainly does and I have no doubt he thinks he's doing god's work in Iraq as part of the run up to the Last Days. I believe his father did, Reagan did, and Carter did. This is the guy with his finger on the trigger of a system that can actually end the world, and if he believes that's what god wants him to do as part of the great plan, he'll do it. If a person believes in a supposed prophecy and is in a position to make it come true, what can we expect to happen? But if in fact the prophecy has been misunderstood, or has nothing to do with reality, it's just the fevered rantings of a very angry and bloody-minded crackpot--which is certainly one possible interpretation of Revelation--then we're heading for self-immolation for the stupidest of reasons. >>>Dexter

You are correct in stating that the last days have been predicted for many of time when things in the world seem to want to indicate that.

But as I have discovered in my searchings, the end will not be as thought, because the end speaks of Jesus ending the first spiritual world and beginning of a new one.

The first spiritual world, meaning the original spirit given mankind led to death, and that is what needed a change.

Jesus came to change that so He ended the first at the cross and begun a new one with life for all mankind, and of this one there is no end.

The physical world may go into chaos but will never totally become none existent, because there will always be a remnant left to continue or start all over again, such was the case in the story of Noah.

And the bible alludes to that concept or theory.

As far as being in the dark, yes, that is a general term which applies to even the believers.

Being in the dark is a natural thing and knowledge is what brings us out of it.

A baby is born into the darkness of this abyss, and the light shines on it by way of knowledge, and for the believer, well, many see through the glass darkly, not seeing clearly yet, but somewhat cloudy, until revelations are received in the forum of spiritual understanding; that glass made clear for understanding, or which would be considered maturity in the word of God.

So my saying darkness was not in any way to demean anybody but only to indicate from what point one starts and to what point one can achieve based on knowledge received and understood.

If enough light shines and blinders are shut, then light can not reach the heart of the matter to be received, understood and therefore remains in the dark, as far as spiritual matters are concerned as pertaining to God.

Interpretation of that light is where the struggle is, and the world is the playing field.

How goes the experience of the struggle, directly proportional to knowledge received and understood, determines the outcome as in everybody's else's' case and mine.

Therefore, I am compassionate to wards understanding the plight of many as they struggle through this world to find understanding, though they be of all different views.

I can help my fellow, by leading, not by force or threat, but by love in action to whomever would have need of.

There is no respect to beliefs with me, for I consider all to be my brothers and sisters first, for I can work with anyone willing to lend their hearts as I mine.

Peace>>>AJ

 

[MHz]

The physical world may go into chaos but will never totally become none existent, because there will always be a remnant left to continue or start all over again, such was the case in the story of Noah.

Are you advocating Christians contribute to what could be called chaos by anybody, in this case anybody who willingly admits to not being a Christian? You seem to be promoting a near extinction man-made event so the remnant (Christians) can start a brave new world.
So usually in a case like this it actually calls for a chapter and verse that backs that up, you didn't find the one about pants because it wasn't there and you certainly won't find one that can be twisted to say Christians should be causing chaos for anybody.

 

[Scott Free]

Well, interesting thread Scott; as a former religionist I see that you have some insights dealing with sceptics. I don't consider myself a sceptic. I'm an atheist pure and simple.

And it's not just that I don't believe in a God, I contend that those who do are responsible for untold misery, suffering and willful ignorance, through the support of their churches and so called theologies. I've tossed out a few examples - if "God" can demonstratably be shown to be a child killer, does it comes as any surprise that his clerical followers abused children at native schools? - but alas, all our religionists run and hide under the bed when such challenges are thrown out!

Looking at, and being a amateur student of history, I say that humankind has suffered immensely from this childish need to believe in a supreme being who will console your wretched ass in times of stress!! The fairy tale beliefs in an everlasting life in heaven with whipped cream on top is frankly unworthy of man.

But our religionists on this thread clearly aren't up to the challenges, so yes I do consider my arguments have won. But even that isn't really my intention - for the many , or at least I assume a few folks have read these posts and gone away thinking about them - for THOSE PEOPLE I hope will take any relgious views thay may have and leave them were they belong - on the trash heap of history.

I have had some personal emails from some posters on this thread congratulating me on the things I said, and one at least admonishing me for my brashness. I have no apologies at all - it hasn't exactly improved the arguments put forward by the other side, but I'm pretty sure it got a few people's attention.

Religionists have pretty much had their way in society for 2,000 years; now it's time the world heard from the atheists and their points of view.

The reason I am not a full blown atheist is thus:

The probability that anything exists is very low and in point of fact as far as human understanding is concerned can't at all. It is all very well and good to say the universe began with a singularity that blew up and made everything we see today. In my opinion this isn't much different than saying Enlil carved the universe away from heaven. As science advances theories fall to the side like so many myths of bygone eras. All we really have to prove our existence is that we see that we exist. How do we know, that as Plato supposes, we aren't only watching shadows on the wall of a cave or as Dostoevsky supposes we are like the sunlight reflected off the tin of a roof? A singularity is a mathematical anomaly that can no more be explained than can the existence Enlil or An (Sumerian gods that created the universe). In fact there is much evidence to suggest the "big bang" is just a myth but for now it is still the best explanation we have but isn't that what saying Enlil carved the earth from heaven really was too: the best explanation for the time?

We can examine the human brain and ascribe mechanical models to it, try and emulate its function, and in doing so claim we have figured something out. This is all well and good until you examine anomalies, which scientists rightly don't focus on because they don't apply to the majority of us but for the argument I'm making such things are crucial; in that when in the 1960s doctors put shunts in children's brains to alleviate pressure by draining excess fluid into the lymphatic system, it was assumed they might live less horrific lives. What in fact happened when they followed up on these children is they found their brains were completely dead except for their cerebral cortex which hummed away at a furious rate. They did IQ tests and found they all average about 120. Theses children single handedly disprove completely all our theories on human intelligence and brain function except in normal brains - but only possibly since obviously no one knows what is really going on. I had the fortune of working with one of these people (not from the above example but had a shunt from childhood) and in all respects he was a normal functioning person.

So why I remain skeptical is that we can not rely on our "current knowledge" too completely nor can we rely on our senses. Currently we only have empirical evidence that we exist, no real explanation of why, no peer review of our observation, but we do have many reasons why we shouldn't - couldn't possibly! The probability in my mind is very high that we really don't but there is also a very high probability that a reality does indeed exist.

Let me explain: Humans are composed of atomic structure. Any small piece of us (a molecule) does not point to our existence. In order to exist we need the cumulative cooperation of billions of atoms. No single atom is us nor are any of the billions of atoms aware they compose a creature such as us. Also between those atoms is a tremendous amount of space. From the atoms perspective they could never compose something such as us. Yet here we are and we are "us." The same example works on a galaxy. You can't look at a single star and say "that is a galaxy" even though from a different vantage point that is true. From that narrow a perspective the galaxy is invisible, undetectable and does not exist, even though, in reality it does. So herein we see a broad range of possibility and realities. Some where things can exist and some where they can't even though they do. The only way to know we really exist is through our senses, reason and empirical evidence all of which is derived from the cooperation of billions of atoms. Without their cooperation there would be no "us," and there would be no evidence of "us." So we are in a sense a product of cooperation, that is to say, the natural laws which govern the universe, and we are only perceptible from a very narrow view point. If the observer is too large or too small not only couldn't the observer see us but also we couldn't exist - it would just be too improbable. So we only really exist because we see ourselves existing and little if anything else does or is capable of seeing it.

So in this way, where it is improbable that we exist, that is to say, we have no explanation of how something can come from nothing; we only have our experience and senses to tell us that despite all logic here we are, and our observations come from a fraction of a hairs perspective in the possible greater reality of things; that we perceive ourselves from the only possible perspective; any other perspective and we would not exist, means to me we probably really don't. So what does? Well it is equally probable that a real reality exists outside of our perspective and in fact we have found such perspectives through science. We can't observe from those perspectives but we can speculate. So if we can exist it pretty much means anything can and if we don't really exist it means anything probably does exist but we aren't properly equipped to see it. Yet any real reality should be able to look at a sun and say "ah yes, that is a galaxy" or look at an atom in a human and say "ah yes, that is a human."

So IMO there is a very real possibility of there being some different reality than what we know and see. Is this god? Possibly, there certainly is room for that explanation, but my inquiry has taken me further than just philosophical arguments to the real nuts and bolts of this inquiry. I am to the point now where I can make some real scientific arguments, testable arguments, that demonstrate we don't exist; oddly this is the only way to prove (in my opinion) how we can exist and it does just that. I'm not ready to go into detail yet, however, the possibility of god is there. Interestingly and to my surprise if he does exist he really does warrant all the praise he receives in past religions. Just how the authors would have known that is a bit of a mystery to me. That being said I still view religion as a mental disorder, a paedomorphosis, and man made.

 

[karrie]

Scott. I've been mulling over the issue I raised with you about perception. And that is where the scientific endeavor, which has managed to convince me of many a thing (including color perception theory believe it or not... lol), has failed to convince me that something more doesn't exist.

I guess you could lump me into the category of 'going to church for the ceremony and fellowship, because I believe religion is a human construct which serves an important function for groups of spiritual people.' Simple right? lol.

But back to what I was saying about science. There's this niggling in the back of my brain that says that science is missing, well, the niggling in the back of my brain. It's a sense that there's something deeper, some power, energy, force, something that they can't see. And why do they refuse to look at it? "Excuse me, but, could you please explain to me this sense I have?" "What sense?" "Well, this niggly little feeling in the depths of my brain that tells me there's something more?" "What niggly feeling?" "Can't you feel it? It's right there, right where I can't quite put my finger on it."

And I don't blame science for falling down on the job in this particular instance. How do you explain a niggle? Yet, there it is, all the time. :lol: